Determining the optimum cell size of digital elevation model for hydrologic application

Journal of Earth System Science

Volumn 120, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 573-582

  Sharma, Arabinda ^a   Tiwari, K N ^b   Bhadoria, P B S ^b  

^a BRCM College of Engineering and Technology   (India)

^b INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

Cell size; DEM; Entropy; Fractal dimension; Semivariogram; Sink

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL; ENTROPY; FRACTAL ANALYSIS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; SPATIAL DATA; SPATIAL VARIATION;

EID: 80052590151     PISSN: 02534126     EISSN: 0973774X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12040-011-0092-3     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abedini M J and Shaghaghian MR 2009 Exploring scaling laws in surface topography; Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 42(4) 2373-2383.
2. Aryal SK and Bates BC 2008 Effects of catchment discretization on topographic index distributions; J. Hydrol. 359(1/2) 150-163.
3. Atkinson PM and Curran PJ 1995 Defining an optimal size of support for remote sensing investigations; IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 33(3) 768-776.
4. Cai X and Wang D 2006 Spatial autocorrelation of topographic index in catchments; J. Hydrol. 328(3-4) 581-591.
5. Chaubey I, Cotter AS, Costello TA and Soerens TS 2005 Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty; Hydrol. Process. 19(3) 621-628.
6. Chen Q and Gong P 2004 Automatic variogram parameter extraction for textural classification of the panchromatic IKONOS imagery; IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 42(5) 1106-15.
7. Dutta D and Nakayama K 2009 Effects of spatial grid resolution on river flow and surface inundation simulation by physically based distributed modelling approach; Hydrol. Process. 23(4) 534-545.
8. Florinsky IV and Kuryakova GA 2000 Determination of grid size for digital terrain modelling in landscape investigations - Exemplified by soil moisture distribution at a micro-scale; Int. J. Geogra. Inf. Sci. 14(8) 815-832.
9. Goovaerts P 1999 Geostatistics in soil science: State-of-theart and perspectives; Geoderma 89 1-45.
10. Hancock GR 2005 The use of digital elevation models in the identification and characterization of catchments over different grid scales; Hydrol. Process. 19(9) 1727-1749.
11. Hengl T 2006 Finding the right pixel size; Comput. Geosci. 32(9) 1283-1298.
12. Kuo WL, Steenhuis TS, McCulloch CE, Mohler CL, Weinstein DA, DeGloria SD and Swaney DP 1999 Effect of grid size on runoff and soil moisture for a variablesource- area hydrology model; Water Resour. Res. 35(11) 3419-3428.
13. Lacroix MP, Martz LW, Kite GW and Garbrecht J 2002 Using digital terrain analysis modeling techniques for the parameterization of a hydrologic model; Environmental Modelling and Software 17(2) 127-136.
14. Lee GS and Lee KH 2006 Scaling effect for estimating soil loss in the RUSLE model using remotely sensed geospatial data in Korea; Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 3(1) 135-157.
15. Liu X, Wang Y and Jin B 2009 Determination of suitable cell size for grid based Digital Elevation Model, Proceeding of SPIE International Symposium on Spatial Analysis, Spatial-Temporal Data Modeling, and Data Mining, 13-14 October 2009, Wuhan, China.
16. Mandelbrot B 1982 The fractal geometry of nature; Freeman, San Francisco, 460 p.
17. Rojas R, Velleux M, Julien P Y and Johnson BE 2008 Grid scale effects on watershed soil erosion models; J. Hydrol. Eng. 13(9) 793-802.
18. Shannon C and Weaver W 1949 The mathematical theory of communication; University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
19. Sharma A, Tiwari KN and Bhadoria PBS 2009 Measuring the accuracy of contour interpolated digital elevation models; J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 37(1) 139-146.
20. Singh R, Tiwari KN and Mal BC 2006 Hydrological studies for small watershed in India using the ANSWERS model; J. Hydrol. 318(1/4) 184-199.
21. Stoy PC, Williams M, Spadavecchia L, Bell RA, Prieto-Blanco A, Evans JG and van Wijk MT 2009 Using information theory to determine optimum pixel size and shape for ecological studies: Aggregating land surface characteristics in arctic ecosystems; Ecosystems 12(4) 574-589.
22. Sun W, Xu G, Gong P and Liang S 2006 Fractal analysis of remotely sensed images: A review of methods and applications; Int. J. Remote Sens. 27(20) 4963-4990.
23. Sun LQ, Hu C and Chen G 2008 Effects of DEM resolution on the TOPMODEL; Shuikexue Jinzhan/Advances in Water Science 19(5) 699-706.
24. Thompson JA, Bell JC and Butler CA 2001 Digital elevation model resolution: Effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling; Geoderma 100(1/2) 67-89.
25. Wechsler SP 2007 Uncertainties associated with digital elevation models for hydrologic applications: A review; Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11 1481-1500.
26. Wilson JP and Gallant JC 2000 Digital terrain analysis; In: Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications (eds) Wilson J P and Gallant G C, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-27.
27. Wu S, Li J and Huang G 2005 An evaluation of grid size uncertainty in empirical soil loss modeling with digital elevation models; Environ. Model. Assess. 10(1) 33-42.
28. Zhang JX, Chang KT and Wu JQ 2008 Effects of DEM Resolution and Source on Soil Erosion Modeling: a Case Study Using the WEPP Model; Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 22(8) 925-942.